Churchill v. State

• Decision Date: 13 April 2017
• Docket Number: No. SC16–654,SC16–654
• Parties: Roger Dennis CHURCHILL, Jr., Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

219 So.3d 14

Roger Dennis CHURCHILL, Jr., Petitioner,
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. SC16–654

Supreme Court of Florida.

[April 13, 2017]

Rocco J. Carbone, III, of Eakin & Sneed, Atlantic Beach, Florida, for Petitioner

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida; and Wesley Heidt, Bureau Chief, and Kristen L. Davenport, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, Florida, for Respondent

POLSTON, J.

Roger Dennis Churchill, Jr., seeks review of the decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Churchill v. State , 169 So.3d 1260 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015), on the ground that it expressly and directly conflicts with a decision of the Third District Court of Appeal in Finney v. State , 420 So.2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (en banc), on a question of law. We have jurisdiction. See Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. For the reasons expressed below, we quash the Fifth District's decision in Churchill and hold that, in appeals from a conditional no contest plea, the appellate court is bound by a stipulation that a pre-plea ruling by the trial court is dispositive of the case.

BACKGROUND

Following his arrest in Citrus County in July 2013, Churchill was charged with one count of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, one count of manufacture of methamphetamine, and one count of possession

219 So.3d 15

of a listed chemical. Prior to trial, Churchill filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude witness testimony about the identity of the substances found at the scene of his arrest, as well as the results from the chemical field tests performed on those substances. He argued that such evidence should be excluded because none of the witnesses listed by the State were qualified expert witnesses under the standard for scientific evidence in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. , 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), and section 90.702, Florida Statutes. The trial court denied the motion in limine, finding that the law enforcement officer who performed the chemical field tests and identified the methamphetamine was sufficiently qualified to testify as an expert witness.

Churchill subsequently entered an open plea of no contest on all charges. The trial court accepted the plea, and Churchill reserved his right to appeal the ruling on the motion in limine, which the State agreed was dispositive of the case. The trial court then adjudicated Churchill guilty and sentenced him to five years on the conspiracy count, a concurrent term of 15 years on the manufacture count, followed by a consecutive term of seven years for possession of a listed chemical.

Churchill filed a timely appeal in the Fifth District where he argued that the trial court erred in not excluding testimony and evidence about the results of the chemical field tests because such evidence failed to comply with the standard for admissibility in Daubert . Churchill , 169 So.3d at 1260 n.1. He did not challenge the trial court's ruling that the law enforcement officer was qualified to testify about the identification of the methamphetamine. Id. The Fifth District declined to address the issue raised by Churchill, holding that "[b]ecause the trial court's order was not dispositive, it cannot be challenged on direct appeal." Id. at 1260–61 (footnote omitted) (citing Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(b)(2)(A)(i) ). The Fifth District reasoned as follows:

Even though the State stipulated below that the trial court's ruling was dispositive, this Court is not bound to accept the State's stipulation. See Ashley v. State , 611 So.2d 617, 618 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (finding that the attorneys and the trial court erred in their assumptions that the ruling on the motion in limine was dispositive, because the defendant could be brought to trial regardless of whether the appellate court affirmed or reversed the trial court's ruling). Here, the stipulation was based on the exclusion of all of the deputy's testimony, including his identification of the methamphetamine based on his training and experience. Churchill waived any argument as to this additional testimony by not raising it in his initial brief.

Id. at 1261 n.2. Accordingly, the Fifth District dismissed Churchill's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Id. at 1261.

ANALYSIS

Churchill contends that the Fifth District erred in dismissing the appeal from his no contest plea for lack of jurisdiction because the appellate court was required to accept the parties' stipulation that the trial court's ruling on the motion in limine was dispositive of the case. We agree.

In 1971, this Court held that a defendant could enter a plea of no contest while reserving a question of law for appellate review. State v. Ashby , 245 So.2d 225, 228 (Fla. 1971). The Court concluded that this type of conditional plea was "not objectionable" because it "expedites resolution of the controversy and narrows the issues to be resolved."Id. Eight years later, this

219 So.3d 16

Court narrowed the scope of Ashby , holding that a conditional no contest plea "is permissible only when the legal issue to be determined on appeal is dispositive of the case." Brown v. State , 376 So.2d 382, 384 (Fla. 1979). The Court reasoned that the policies underlying the decision in Ashby were "poorly served" and "thwarted" when a defendant was allowed to appeal nondispositive rulings because...